Kissinger and Chile The Myth That Will Not Die

American Enterprise Institute ^ | October 31, 2003 | By Mark Falcoff

[Huber]

Future topic for Ann Coulter?

[visitor]

read later ...rto

[TaxRelief]

Huber: Let me help make this more pallitable for the average busy Freeper.

(Summary Part I) The media, particularly Christopher Hutchins, are obsessed with "America's role" in the coup d'tat that deposed Chile's Allende 30 years ago.

(Summary Part II) Henry Kissinger was a very busy man who had very little time to bother with Allende and Chile.

[Argh]

Bump.

[tallhappy]

Future topic for Ann Coulter?

What? That the only good thing Kissinger ever did he didn't really do?

[gaspar]

Falcoff's declaration that the New York Times was "indifferent to the uses of anti-Americanism," was true not only for Chile but for most of its reporting on Latin America since 1960.

[Rodney King]

Pinochet was a hero who reluctantly put himself forward to save South America from the Communists. He then instituted free market reform and voluntarily stepped down and held free elections.

That he dished back out 10% of what the communists gave is the supposed reason for calling him a murderer and a war criminal.

[KC_Conspirator]

bump

[TaxRelief]

(Summary Part III) Nixon wanted to forestall Allende's inauguration, so the CIA devised Plan A (a constitutional coup and Plan B (a military coup).

(Summary Part IV) Kissinger ordered Plan B to be called off. CIA attempted to get General Viaux to stand down, but he did not. Viaux's people, in a bungled kidnapping attempt, murdered General Schneider who opposed a military coup.

(Summary Part V) The murder of General Schneider encouraged other "constitutionalist" officers to support an orderly transfer of power to the new Allende administration.

(Summary Part VI) During the 3 years(1970-73) that Allende remained in power, he built up the military using foreign lines of credit and confiscation of foreign and domestic investment within Chile.

(Summary Part VII) Allende's totalitarianism and confiscation of personal property and personal property rights caused unrest nationwide, forcing Allende to depend on the military to stay in power. Allende disenfranchised too many government officials.

(Summary Part VIII) Rumors of a coup were spread internationally. Even Allende knew he was about to be overthrown. When it was over, President Nixon thought we had a discrete hand in the final events. Ambassador Kissinger told President Nixon that we were not involved.

[TaxRelief]

(Summary Part IX) .."What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted."

Huber- You need to summarize the conclusion.

[Huber]

What? That the only good thing Kissinger ever did he didn't really do?

LOL - If you say so. Kissinger's contributions to the US are debatable with valid arguments on both sides. Either way, however, it would be better if the history we teach our children were based on fact vs. the NY Times agenda.

[Huber]

That he dished back out 10% of what the communists gave is the supposed reason for calling him a murderer and a war criminal.

Are you saying that the commies weren't "fair and balanced?"

Saying that he was a hero, however, is a fairly broad statement. Can you provide any facts for us to back up your point?

[Rodney King]

Saying that he was a hero, however, is a fairly broad statement. Can you provide any facts for us to back up your point?

Well, the early 70's were a terrible time for the cause of Freedom in the world. The communists were on the march all over the world, and South America was looking good for them. Pinochet was not neccessarily the obvious choice to lead the coup. He led the coup because where other generals demurred in the face trouble, afraid of course of the consequences, Pinochet stood up to be counted because he did not want to see Chile and South America fall to the communists. And it's not like Pinochet did this on a whim, he ahd the support of both the congress and the supreme court.

After he won, he instituted sweeping free-market reforms, creating a retirment system that we ought to emulate. Later, when the communist threat was gone, he voluntarily stepped down and held free elections. Who knows what South America would look like if not for Piochet? Who knows whether or not hte Soviet Union would have collapsed had all of South America gone communist? Yes, some communists were killed by the government. It was war. You cannot expect a fragile government to stand idly by while communists financed by Cuba and the Soviet Union attempt to topple it and replace it with a communist dictatorship. If freedom is a natural right, then those who attempt to take away freedom by foreign financed insurrection should expect to be treated as foregin soldiers committing an act of war.

What is needed today is more leaders like Pinochet in Brazil and Venezuela.

[GoGophers]

He then instituted free market reform and voluntarily stepped down and held free elections.

He stepped down seventeen years later after his government murdered thousands of dissidents and he suffered a crushing defeat in a referendum.

I am sorry but a tyrant (left or right) is still a tyrant.

[Clemenza]

VIVA PINOCHET, Savior of Chile!

[Rodney King]

Savior of all of South America is more like it!

[TaxRelief]

Both Franco and Pinochet used the same technique: They routed out civil dissenters that were remnants of the previous regime, and had them executed, usually after a trial, usually for treason and/or violent crimes. Treason is punishable by death in most countries, and so is murder. Criminally interfering foreigners were also executed.

Franco's people and Pinochet's people both saw their leaders as interim, benevolent dictators. They were tough on crime and focused on rebuilding their countries economically. They had few restrictions on religion.

Pinochet and Franco are both painted as bad guys by the main stream media. That fact, in and of itself, should be enough to make one want to do a little more research.

[TaxRelief]

Odd, isn't it that the same "Human Rights" organizations that decry executing criminals, terrorists and those guilty of treason, are silent when it comes to the removal of feeding tubes for the disabled.

[Clemenza]

Yeah, after a Marxist seized power with 31% of the vote and proceeded to nationalize the economy, supress dissent and invite Cuban terrorists to train in Chile.

[GoGophers]

Both Franco and Pinochet used the same technique: They routed out civil dissenters that were remnants of the previous regime, and had them executed, usually after a trial, usually for treason and/or violent crimes.

I don't know about Franco, but Pinochet's government executed or "disappeared" thousands of dissidents and most of them did not have the luxury of a trial.